Blood and soil: How hate speech is destroying political discourse

Anybody with an internet connection and a social media profile will have seen examples of hate speech against migrants and refugees in recent years. And we’re not talking about legitimate criticism of globalisation or Europe’s current migration policy – rather, dehumanising and violent language, calling for the sinking of refugee boats or the gassing of migrants.

Martin Leng is the Communications Coordinator for the Quaker Council of European Affairs (QCEA), based in Brussels. QCEA advocates for peacebuilding and human rights in Europe on behalf of tens of thousands of Quakers across the continent. The group recently published a report, Anti-Migrant Hate Speech, which has more information about excellent civil society initiatives which work to tackle xenophobia online.

Hate-mongering such as this brings to mind the worst chapters of human history.

Indeed, here in Europe, such angry, fearful attitudes are nothing new – they have been dusted off time and again in the service of demagogues and dictators. They are the spark which ignited a thousand pogroms. They are paving stones on the path to Auschwitz.

It is, therefore, a source of great sadness to see such words on the pages of Facebook and Twitter – modern tools of openness and dialogue in the service of tired old prejudice. Not only because they remind us of the worst of humanity, but because words such as these have terrible consequences.

Recently published research has uncovered parallels between hate-fuelled Facebook posts and an increase in racially-motivated attacks on refugees in Germany, with material from the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party page under the spotlight.

This was starkly illustrated by new research highlighted by EurActiv in August. It found a correlation between instances of xenophobic comments on social media and real-world violence targeting refugees and migrants.

“The most common incidents include damage to refugee housing, assaults, anti-refugee demonstrations and arson attacks,” according to the findings.

And while this particular analysis focused on Germany, the problem is truly European in scale.

This begs the question: should the response be European, too? For better or for worse, the EU is closely associated with migration policy in the public consciousness – and given the current “blood and soil” political discourse in many of its member states, Brussels can hardly rely on some national capitals to address hate speech with any seriousness.

The EU has already taken some tentative steps towards addressing the issue.

In May 2016, it brokered the agreement of a “code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online,” signed by Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Other digital giants have since added their names, and the initiative has seen some progress, with 70% of hate speech flagged up by users being removed.

The Commission has also made (limited) funding available for civil society projects aimed at countering violent and dehumanising speech on the internet.

But the challenge is about more than just securing private sector buy-in, or hopeful grantmaking. The rise of online hate speech is a symptom of a wider malaise in public life, epitomised by a retreat into partisan echo chambers and mass distrust in the “establishment”.

Increasingly, we shout over those who hold different points of view and regard inconvenient facts as biased or even conspiratorial.

EU Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová stood by the EU’s principles that freedom of speech was not absolute at a panel discussion held in Brussels, saying that attempts to regulate hate speech were justified but her comments prompted a fierce debate.

Like hate speech itself, such impulses are nothing new, but the algorithms and anonymity of the internet have surely aggravated the situation massively.

It’s for sociologists to determine whether Facebook and Twitter provoked this deterioration in our public life, or merely facilitated the rot.

But in any case, Pandora’s Box has been opened and we can’t turn the clock back to an age of analogue civility. So what to do?

In his recent report, David Kaye – the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression – suggests moving away from so-called “viewpoint regulation” on the internet.

Yes, calling for the gassing of refugees on Facebook is repugnant – but a great deal of online xenophobia is less explicit, and it’s hard to draw a clear line between so many shades of grey.

Defining hate speech is a subjective endeavour, and Kaye warns that we run the risk of censorship by casting the net too widely.

Instead, he argues for more clarity about what is and is not acceptable, and encourages the EU to further invest in civil society organisations which support the “development of positive narratives and critical thinking”.

The idea, then, is to win the arguments instead of stifling them. A great example of this is the Swedish #jagärhär (“I am here”) movement, a thousands-strong network of volunteers who “drown out” hate speech on social media with positive messages and links to facts which disprove xenophobic statements.

Refuting hate speech with empirical evidence and dialogue will not put an end to anti-migrant hatred – neither on your Twitter feed, nor in real life.

Online platforms should remove posts promoting terrorism within one hour after receiving complaints, according to a draft European Commission document that leaked on Tuesday (13 February).

But given the role that “fake news” and polarisation play in our hostile public discourse, educating and engaging could be a more sustainable response than simply deleting comments which (rightly) offend our sensibilities.

The EU should lend such efforts its full support.

In any case, we must not forget the terrible lessons of history, nor the very real consequences of hateful language in the present.

It only takes one angry person, warped by a constant drip-feed of online xenophobia, to commit an atrocity whilst yelling far-right slogans. This is a new lesson which we are learning the hard way, from razed refugee shelters in Berlin to the streets of Batley and Spen.

Whatever Europe’s response, it must not be half-hearted – lives are at stake.

Advertisement

Comments

3 responses to “Blood and soil: How hate speech is destroying political discourse”

This on line abuse is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. It speaks of the perceived failure of our collective governments to anticipate and initiate any meaningful action in regards to the migration issue. It is a rejection of their retreat into denial and their impotence in managing the situation. This leads to these expressions of anger that say, we need to fix this ourselves as our representatives are too busy hiding behind their chairs. Flooding the media with fake feel-good messages is just another false solution, the rot will continue.

educating and engaging sounds like indoctrination, propaganda and repression.

Basically that is what #jagärhär actually is. Zealot activists dedication excessive amounts of time on distorting the online representation of general public opinion only adds to the feeling of betrayal.
Betrayal by politicians, journalists and just about everybody calling themselves ‘progressive’ or ‘left wing’.

After WWI we had a population exchange between Turkey and Greece to prevent future wars. Also after WW2 ethnic groups were moved into separated nation states and Germans from all over east Europe moved to Germany…to remove the seeds of future wars. Now this wisdom seems to have been forgotten, liberal idiots think human nature is infinitely malleable. It is not, allowing these mass movements of people to go unchecked is like playing with fire, it is the cause of all this rise in ‘xenophobia’..because if your government doesn’t protect your people…well the people have to do it themselves.